Journal of Research in Rural Education, 2006, 21(2)
Gender, Family Help, and Homework Management
Reported by Rural Middle School Students
Jianzhong Xu
Mississippi State University
Lyn Corno
Columbia University
Citation: Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2006, March 10). Gender, family help, and homework management reported
by rural middle school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 21(2). Retrieved [date] from
http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/21-2.pdf
This study linked gender, family help, and grade level to 5 features of homework management reported by 238 rural middle
school students. The 5 features studied were setting an appropriate work environment; managing time; and controlling
attention, motivation, and potentially interfering emotions. No significant differences were found across grade levels on
any of the 5 homework management indices. Compared with boys, girls reported more frequently working to budget time,
to be self-motivating during homework, and to control potentially interfering emotions. Students who received family help,
compared to those who did not, reported more frequently working to manage their workspace, to be self-motivating during homework, and to control potentially interfering emotions. The article discusses these findings in the context of recent
theoretical frameworks and empirical studies. In addition, it suggests directions for future research and practice related to
homework management for rural middle school students.
A major purpose of homework is to help students
develop good study habits and desirable self-regulatory
strategies, such as better time organization and greater
self-direction (Cooper, 1989; Corno, 1994; Epstein & Van
Voorhis, 2001; Warton, 2001; Xu & Yuan, 2003). Few studies
have examined this view empirically, however, particularly
at the middle school level (Bali, Demo, & Wedman, 1998;
Epstein & Pinkow, 1988; Xu, 2004).
Xu and Corno (2003) recently investigated the role of
family homework help on a range of homework management
strategies reported by urban middle school students. The
results suggested that parents, across socioeconomic lines,
can continue to assist their adolescents in responsibly completing homework. However, that study involved a limited
sample in one urban middle school. In addition, no data were
available about whether the use of homework management
strategies related to gender differences in students.
The present study used the same methodology to relate gender, family help, and grade level to the same five
homework management strategies studied previously. The
present sample focused on rural middle school students.
This line of research is important as rural students tend to
have lower educational aspirations (e.g., Arnold, Newman,
Gaddy, & Dean, 2005; Cobb, McIntire, & Pratt, 1989;
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Jianzhong Xu, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Box
9705, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762.
(jx18@colled.msstate.edu)
Haller & Virkler, 1993; Hu, 2003) and place less importance
on academics (Ley, Nelson, & Beltyukova, 1996; Stern,
1994), which may influence the way they approach their
homework. Furthermore, as theory (e.g., Covington, 1998;
Deslandes & Cloutier, 2002; Jackson, 2003) and research
(e.g., Benson, 1988; Harris, Nixon, & Rudduck, 1993; Hong
& Milgram, 1999) imply that gender may play a significant
role in homework attitudes and behavior, there is a need to
examine whether gender is related to homework management strategies, and consequently what implications might
be drawn from this line of research.
Related Literature
Our investigation was informed by three lines of related literature. The first line examines the role of family
involvement on the development of homework management
strategies. The second points to the need to examine the
use of homework management strategies in rural settings.
Finally, the third line of literature suggests possible gender
differences in managing middle school homework.
Family Assistance with Homework Management
Studies show that middle school students, across a range
of socioeconomic backgrounds, continue to struggle with
distractions while doing homework (Beentjes, Koolstra,
& van der Voort, 1996; Benson, 1988; Leone & Richards,
1989; Patton, Stinard, & Routh, 1983; Pool, van der Voort,
2
XU AND CORNO
Beentjes, & Koolstra, 2000; Wober, 1992). These include
both external distractions in the home environment (e.g.,
television and telephone, siblings coming in and out of the
room, and noise from vacuum cleaners, washing machines,
and doorbells) and internal distractions (e.g., feeling tired
or restless, wandering attention, and mood swings). In addition, students are faced with other unique demands often
associated with doing homework, being expected to assume
increasing responsibility in arranging their learning environment, in managing time, and in monitoring their homework
activities (Cooper, 1989; Corno & Xu, 2004; Xu, 2004; Xu
& Corno, 1998, 2003). These demands continue to present
a challenge for middle school students to follow through on
their homework assignments. Indeed, sixth graders in one
upper-middle-class suburban community (Benson, 1988)
requested that
[p]arents should monitor the telephone and answer
the door during study time; turn off appliances and
control the volume of the television, radio and
stereo located near study areas; remove brothers
and sisters as well as pets; [and] request that other
family members keep yelling and crying to a minimum during the study period. (p. 371)
Fortunately, other studies provide some evidence that
families from different backgrounds can assist their children
by helping them learn how to structure the work environment
(e.g., provide seats and writing surfaces), and cope with
external distractions (e.g., keep visitors away and turn off
nearby television sets) and internal distractions (e.g., remind
children to keep focused on their homework and assure them
that they can complete even difficult parts) (Chandler, Argyris, Barnes, Goodman, & Snow, 1986; Leone & Richards,
1989; McCaslin & Murdock, 1991; McDermott, Goldman,
& Varenne, 1984).
Results reported by McCaslin and Murdock (1991)
implied that middle school children could learn from parents
how to manage internal distractions through monitoring
their motivation and emotions, even when parents have
limited formal education. Researchers interviewed parents
and children from one sixth-grade class in one city in the
Midwest over homework interactions.
In one family, the father motivated his son to do homework by visualizing distal goals—a good job some day
(high-paying, with regular 9-5 schedule), combined with
an expression of regret that he himself had not used education opportunities to advance his career potential. He also
encouraged his son to control negative emotions that arose
during homework (Corno, 2001; Kuhl, 2000). For example,
when his son was upset with homework because it did not
come right way, he would tell the boy to calm down, cool
off, and relax, so that he could get back on track, focus his
mind, and get to the bottom of the problem. As a result, it
appeared that the boy had internalized some of his father’s
motivation and coping strategies. He became aware of the
potential consequences of frustrated coping (e.g., that refusing to ask for help could result in a poor or failing grade).
Realizing the self-destructiveness of anger, the boy also
began to learn to control his emotions, as illustrated in his
statement, “I don’t feel like doing the work. But I keep doing
it” (McCaslin & Murdock, 1991, p. 229).
Recently, Xu and Corno (2003) conducted a survey
study of urban middle school students, which explicitly
linked family involvement in homework to a broad spectrum
of homework management strategies. The respondents were
121 students in a public school in New York City in grades
6-8. The sample consisted of 43.5% Latinos, 24.3% African
Americans, 20.9% multiracial students, 9.6% Caucasians,
and 1.7% Asians. The survey included a set of questions
concerning five features of homework management, including setting up an appropriate environment for homework,
managing time spent on homework, and control of attention,
motivation, and potentially interfering emotions.
These middle school students reported taking significantly more initiative in time management, focusing attention, and monitoring motivation than they did in arranging
their environment or in monitoring and controlling their
emotions. The data further revealed no reliable differences
across grade levels on the five features of homework management. Among students who received family homework
help, helper’s educational level also appeared unrelated to
any of the five features. On the other hand, family involvement in homework was related to two of the five features
of managing homework: namely, arranging the environment
and controlling negative emotions, the two features that
the students in this sample reported giving less attention to
on their own than the other features. Specifically, students
who received homework help, compared to those who did
not, reported more frequently working to manage their
workspace and were more careful about monitoring and
controlling emotions.
Taken together, this line of literature suggests the
important role that family involvement can play in the
development of homework management strategies. Middle
school students still benefit from clear expectations regarding how to arrange the homework environment, as well as
from adult assistance in showing them how to cope when
doing homework becomes difficult and distractions are a
problem. It further suggests that adolescents can internalize various homework management strategies modeled by
their parents, related to dealing with external and internal
distractions (e.g., arranging the physical environment and
monitoring one’s emotions).
HOMEWORK MANAGEMENT
Educational Aspirations and Homework Management
in Rural Settings
Educational aspirations of rural youth lag behind those
of their nonrural counterparts (Arnold et al., 2005; Cobb
et al., 1989; Eider, 1963; Haas, 1992; Haller & Virkler,
1993; Hektner, 1995; Hu, 2003; Kampits, 1996; Kannapel
& DeYoung, 1999; Khattri, Riley, & Kane, 1997; McCraken & Barcinas, 1991; Stern, 1994). Cobb et al. (1989)
compared educational aspirations of high school students
in rural, suburban, and urban areas, based on a nationally
representative sample of seniors. The data revealed that
rural students did not aspire to postsecondary educational
opportunities as frequently as urban and suburban students
did. When asked what the lowest level of education they
would be satisfied with, 39.2% of rural students reported
that they would be satisfied with high school graduation or
below, as compared with 25.7% of urban students and 26.6%
of suburban students.
In another study involving a nationally representative
sample, Hu (2003) examined educational aspirations and
postsecondary access by students in urban, suburban, and
rural schools. Using 10th graders as a baseline population,
the study found that higher percentages of rural students
had aspirations for high school or below (16.6% for rural, in
contrast to 11.0% for urban and 10.6% for suburban students)
and for 2-year college education (33.1% for rural, in contrast
to 27.1% for urban and 29.3% for suburban students), and
lower percentages of rural students had aspirations for 4-year
college education or beyond (50.2% for rural, in contrast
to 61.9% for urban and 60.2% for suburban students). It
further revealed that smaller percentages of students in
rural schools were enrolled in postsecondary institutions
(51.1% for rural, in contrast to 57.4% for urban and 58.8%
for suburban students).
Relevant findings from other studies have further
indicated that rural students place less value on academics
(Ley et al., 1996; Stern, 1994). For example, in a study of
2,355 students from 21 rural high schools in 21 states, Ley
et al. (1996) asked students to indicate the importance of 21
attributes relating to their personal goals after high school.
The study found that these students placed more importance
upon personal qualities (e.g., being dependable and having
the ability to get along with others) and less importance
upon specific areas of academic achievement (e.g., being
proficient with basic English skills and math skills).
It follows, then, that lower educational aspirations and
less importance placed on academics could lead to a sense
that “school isn’t for me” (Haas, 1992). More specifically,
they could further lead to a sense that “homework isn’t for
me,” as alluded to in one survey of 210 high school seniors
in seven rural Tennessee high schools (Reddick & Peach,
1993). The study found that whereas 91% of the students
indicated that homework was directly related to what they
3
were taught in class that day, only 37% felt that homework
was beneficial, and only 21% felt it was reasonable in
terms of work required for its completion. These results
imply that this “homework isn’t for me” attitude may play
a role in homework behavior (e.g., how and to what extent
to complete assignments). Indeed, this view was supported
by the findings from one survey of the parents of 570 rural
fifth graders (Reetz, 1991), in which the majority of parents
reported that they were more concerned about helping children establish independent study habits than assisting them
with the academic content of their homework.
This line of literature suggests that, compared with
urban students, rural students have lower educational aspirations, place less value on academics, and have lower
academic motivation. This approach may lead them to think
that homework is not for them, which, in turn, may influence their homework completion behaviors and homework
management strategies.
Gender Differences in Homework
The third line of literature relevant to the present study
suggests possible gender differences in managing middle
school homework. First, from a sociological perspective,
girls are often viewed to have a stronger work ethic than
boys (Mau & Lynn, 2000; Warrington, Younger, & Williams, 2000) and higher levels of self-reliance (Deslandes
& Cloutier, 2002). Harris et al. (1993) attribute this gender
difference to what they call the “regime” in the home and the
communities where the students live, where males tend to
maintain a clear distinction between time at work and time
away from work when they can relax and are looked after
by their womenfolk. On the other hand, females are viewed
as organizers, who manage the family’s interface with the
outside world, and the primary homemaker, even though they
also often hold down full- or part-time jobs. Consequently,
this gender regime is carried over into how students of both
genders generally approach homework, with boys making a
strong distinction between school and home, and girls being more organized and ready to expend greater efforts on
homework (Harris et al., 1993; Mau & Lynn, 2000).
From the psychological perspective of self-worth theory
(Covington, 1992, 1998), students are concerned about protecting their sense of self-worth as much or more than succeeding academically. This perspective further posits that,
compared with girls, boys are more competitive. When their
ability is called into question, boys are more likely to turn
to defensive strategies such as procrastination, intentional
withdrawal of effort, and avoiding the appearance of working (Jackson, 2002, 2003). For example, putting off work
until the last minute can be used, either to suggest superior
ability (“I can do this faster than other kids.”), or to provide
an excuse for poor performance that deflects attention away
from a potential lack of ability. Either explanation maintains
4
XU AND CORNO
self-worth. Likewise, boys may seek to protect their selfworth strategically by withdrawing effort, thereby conveying
the impression that they are able to succeed academically,
but they simply choose not to.
Taken together, these two perspectives suggest that
compared with boys, girls generally hold more positive
attitudes toward homework, are less concerned about
self-worth in relation to homework, and expend greater
effort on doing homework. This hypothesis is supported
by emerging evidence from relevant homework studies.
Harris et al. (1993) examined students’ view of homework,
based on interviews with 57 students in three semirural
comprehensive schools in England. The students were in
their last year of compulsory school, year 11, and were age
16. The results revealed that these girls were more prepared
to regularly organize their homework time than boys, who
seemed less committed to working regularly and preferred
to work in batches. The boys reported that they “usually do
[their homework] at the last minute or not at all,” whereas
“the girls have got more sense to plan it out” (p. 9). These
findings paralleled a similar observation by Younger & Warrington (1996) that girls and boys generally adopted different
approaches to homework, “with girls working more steadily
and consistently, producing work which was neater, more
detailed and coherently planned, and showing more effort
and resilience” (p. 310).
Hong and Milgram (1999) examined cultural and gender differences in students’ preferred and actual homework
styles. The participants were 272 U.S. seventh graders (134
males and 138 females) and 219 Korean seventh graders (115
males and 104 females). Homework Preference Questionnaire and Homework Questionnaire were used to measure
each participant’s preferred homework style and actual
homework style, respectively. These elements of homework
style included sound, light, temperature, structure, order,
and mobility.
A few gender differences were observed in this study.
More male students than female students in both countries
expressed a preference for doing—and reported actually
doing—their homework assignments when they involved
tactile learning (e.g., using one’s hands to design or build)
or kinesthetic learning (e.g., involving actual experience). In
addition, more females than males reported doing homework
in a bright environment and organizing their homework assignments in a certain order.
These studies, relating to possible gender differences
in some homework behavior, raise the interesting question
as to whether there might be gender differences in other
related self-regulatory behavior while doing homework.
For example, in one survey study of 93 sixth graders in an
upper-middle-class suburban school (Benson, 1988), all
respondents reported facing homework distractions at one
time or another. In addition, the students offered a variety
of strategies to deal with these varied distractions. Most
noted self-awareness, self-discipline, and parental support
(e.g., lowering the television volume or removing siblings
from the study area). Unfortunately, no data were available
as to whether there were gender differences in identifying
and dealing with these homework distractions. Such data
would have been particularly interesting since the study
found “some students are more annoyed by homework
interruptions than others” (Benson, 1988, p. 371), implying that there might be individual differences in managing
homework distractions.
This third line of literature suggests that gender may
play a role in managing middle school homework (e.g.,
planning and organizing homework assignments). However,
whereas theoretical perspectives (Covington, 1992; 1998;
Deslandes & Cloutier, 2002; Harris et al., 1993; Jackson,
2002, 2003; Warrington et al., 2000) imply that there may be
gender differences in homework management, some studies
(Harris et al., 1993; Hong & Milgram, 1999) revealed gender
differences in one or two types of homework strategies (e.g.,
organizing time or homework assignments), while other studies (Benson, 1988; Leone & Richards, 1989; Patton et al.,
1983) did not explicitly link gender to related homework
strategies.
Thus, there is a need to explicitly link gender to a broad
spectrum of homework management strategies that can be
operationalized and compared across different grade levels.
There is also a need to correlate family homework help with
these homework management strategies in rural settings, as
rural students may place less value on academics and have
lower academic motivation, especially since middle and high
school homework often focuses on the materials covered on
achievement tests (Cooper & Valentine, 2001). These issues
are addressed in the present study.
Method
Participants
The participants in the present study were 238 students
in one public middle school in eastern central Tennessee.
The school was located in a rural community, 79 miles away
from the nearest metropolitan area. The economic base of
the community comprised manufacturing, farming, and,
increasingly, service industries. The community comprised
roughly about 22,000 residents, with a median household
income of approximately $35,000 and a median value per
housing unit of $90,000. The average household contained
2-3 residents and 5-6 rooms. About 80% of the residents
owned the place where they lived. In addition to the middle
school (grades 7-8) in this sample, the community had six
elementary schools (grades K-4), another middle school
(grades 5-6), and a high school (grades 9-12).
The middle school in this study enrolled 951 students
in grades 7-8, 35% of whom were eligible for free or re-
HOMEWORK MANAGEMENT
5
Table 1
Five Features of Homework Management
Scale
Feature
Definition
Itema
αc
αd
Arranging
environment
Efforts to arrange
the work
environment
Finding a quiet area
Removing things from the table
Making enough space for me to work
Turning off the TV
Finding an area where I can get help from others
.66
.66
Managing
time
Efforts to budget
time to meet
deadlines
Setting priorities and planning ahead
Keeping track of what remains to be done
Reminding myself of the remaining available time
Telling myself to work more quickly when I lag behind
.61
.72
Focusing
attentionb
Efforts to
discriminate
task-relevant
information from
distractions
Daydreaming during a homework session
Starting conversations unrelated to what I’m doing
Playing around with other things while doing my homework
Stopping homework to watch my favorite TV show
Stopping work on homework to play
.79
.82
Monitoring
motivation
Efforts to maintain
or enhance homework intentions
Praising myself for good effort
Praising myself for good work
Reassuring myself that I am able to do homework when I
feel it is too hard
.75
.81
Monitoring
and
controlling
emotion
Efforts to prevent
or control
negative affect
or redirect
emotional
response
Telling myself to pay attention to what needs to be done
Taking a break
Calming myself down
Asking my parents or other family members for help
Calling my friends for help
Cheering myself up and telling myself that I can do it
.72
.66
Response categories for each item were 1 = Routinely, 2 = Often, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Rarely, and 5 = Never.
All items in this category were recoded to reverse the direction of the score.
c
Alpha reliability coefficients for each scale in the earlier study of urban middle school students (Xu & Corno, 2003).
d
Alpha reliability coefficients for each scale in the present study of rural middle school students.
a
b
duced-price meals. Per pupil expenditure for the school year
2001-2002 was $5,570 for the community, as compared with
$6,349 for the state and $7,899 for the nation. The new academic wing of the school included 42 classrooms, a science
lab, eight teacher workrooms, and an office complex. This
academic wing joined a renovated building previously used
by the high school, which contained a cafeteria, a library, a
computer lab (with space for 30 students), an auditorium,
a gymnasium, a counseling center, and additional office
space.
Care was given to select a sample of students to be representative of the student population in the middle school.
English classes were selected for survey administration
since they were required for all students. The principal was
asked to randomly select five English classes in both grade
7 and grade 8.
Of the 238 respondents in the sample, 49.6% were
male (118) and 50.4% were female (120). The sample included 131 seventh graders and 107 eighth graders (91.9%
Caucasians, 4.7% Latinos, 1.7% multiracial students, .9%
Asian Americans, .4% African Americans, and .4% Native
Americans). The racial/minority breakdown in this sample
was comparable to that of the community.
6
XU AND CORNO
Survey Instrument
Data Analysis
We first shared the survey with the principal in early
January 2002 and secured approval to administer it. The
teachers administered the survey in their classes in midFebruary 2002.
In the survey, which took about 30 minutes to administer, the students indicated their gender and grade level.
They also answered questions about whether they had
received homework assistance from parents or other family members during the school year. Sixty-nine percent of
students reported that they had received family assistance
with homework.
Of major interest in this survey were the five features
of homework management strategies that students may
use to aid homework completion regardless of the task’s
content or difficulty (Xu & Corno, 2003). The survey was
informed by previous case study observations of families
doing homework together (Corno, 2000; Xu, 1994; Xu &
Corno, 1998) and other literature on favorable conditions
for doing homework at the elementary and middle school
level (Chandler et al., 1986; Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Leone
& Richards, 1989; McCaslin & Murdock, 1991; McDermott
et al., 1984). These features included: (a) arranging the environment (a five-item scale, e.g., “finding a quiet place” and
“turning off the TV”), (b) managing time (a four-item scale,
e.g., “setting priorities and planning ahead” and “keeping
track of what remains to be done”), (c) focusing attention1
(a five-item scale, e.g., “daydreaming during a homework
session” and “playing around with other things while doing
my homework”), (d) monitoring motivation (a three-item
scale, e.g., “praising myself for good effort” and “praising
myself for good work”), and (e) monitoring and controlling
emotion (a six-item scale, e.g., “calming myself down” and
“cheering myself up and telling myself that I can do it”).
Possible responses for each item were routinely (scored 1),
often (scored 2), sometimes (scored 3), rarely (scored 4),
and never (scored 5). Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s
alpha) are shown in Table 1.
The survey also included two items on parents’ education. These two items asked, “What is your father’s highest
education?” and “What is your mother’s highest education?”
Possible responses for both items were finished elementary
school (scored 6 years), some secondary schooling (scored
9 years), high school graduate (scored 12 years), some college (scored 14 years), bachelor’s degree (scored 16 years),
some graduate courses (scored 17 years), and graduate
degree (scored 19 years). A composite variable for parental
level of education was then constructed by averaging the
educational levels for the father and the mother (M = 14.14,
SD = 3.23).
We conducted multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) because (a) there were five dependent variables, which share a common conceptual meaning (Stevens,
2002); and (b) we wanted to control for parental level of
education. A three-way MANCOVA estimated effects of
gender, family help, and grade level on the five features
of homework management shown in Table 1. The analysis
controlled for parental level of education by including the
following composite variable as a covariate: the mean years
for the father’s and mother’s highest education. Finally,
significant multivariate findings were followed up using
separate univariate tests.
Independent variables. Gender was coded at two levels:
1 (male) and 2 (female). Grade level was coded at two levels: 1 (seventh graders) and 2 (eighth graders). In addition,
family help was coded at two levels: 1 (students who did
not receive homework help) and 2 (students who received
homework help).
Dependent variables. The dependent variables were
mean scores on the five homework features—arranging the
environment, managing time, focusing attention, monitoring motivation, and monitoring and controlling emotion
(see Table 1). Intercorrelations among these five features,
shown in Table 2, ranged from .19 (monitoring emotion and
focusing attention) to .56 (managing time and arranging the
environment). All 10 correlations were statistically significant (see Table 2), suggesting common linkages across these
strategies for managing homework, consistent with theoretical discussions (see Corno, 2001) and previous empirical
findings (see Xu & Corno, 2003).
Reversed scored.
1
Results
Levels of Homework Management across the Five
Features
A one-way within-subjects analysis of variance revealed
significant differences among the five features of homework
management (F = 11.53, df = 4/884, p < .001, η2 = .050). An
adjusted Bonferroni post-hoc comparison detected specific
differences among features: Students reported significantly
more efforts in arranging the workspaces (M = 2.74, SD =
.84), managing time (M = 2.78, SD = .89), and focusing
attention (M = 2.79, SD = .97) than they did in monitoring
motivation (M = 3.10, SD = 1.07) or in monitoring and
controlling emotions (M = 3.01, SD = .74).
Gender, Homework Help, Grade Level, and the Five Features of Homework Management
The assumptions of homogeneity of variance-covariance and homogeneity of regression slopes were tested in a
HOMEWORK MANAGEMENT
7
Table 2
Product Moment Correlations for Study Variables (N from 215 to 238)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.
Gender
—
2.
Grade
-.02
—
3.
Family help
.02
-.04
—
4.
Parental educational level
.04
-.21**
.05
—
5.
Arranging environment
-.08
.11
-.20**
-.15*
—
6.
Managing time
-.15*
.05
-.08
-.15*
.56**
—
7.
Focusing attention
-.20**
.05
-.15*
-.10
.39**
.50**
—
8.
Monitoring motivation
-.17*
.06
-.20**
-.08
.41**
.38**
.31**
—
9.
Monitoring and controlling emotion
-.20**
.11
-.22**
-.08
.49**
.41**
.19**
.55**
9
—
p < .05. **p < .01.
*
preliminary MANCOVA. Box’s Test indicated homogeneity
of variance-covariance, F(105,22852) = 1.217, p = .065.
Thus, Wilks’s Lambda was used as the test statistic for the
multivariate tests. The MANCOVA’s test for homogeneity
of regression revealed no significant slope differences on
the parents’ education covariate across gender, grade, or
family help groups—Wilks’s Lambda = .80, F(35,802) =
1.270, p = .138.
The full MANCOVA results—using the five features of
homework management as the dependent variables; gender,
grade level, and family help as independent variables; and
parental educational level as a control variable—showed that
gender, grade level, and family help did not interact (Wilks’s
Lambda = .985, F(5,193) = .578, p = .717, multivariate η2 =
.015). The results also showed no interaction between gender
and grade level (Wilks’s Lambda = .994, F(5,193) = .238, p =
.945, multivariate η2 = .006), grade and family help (Wilks’s
Lambda = .987, F(5,193) = .514, p = .765, multivariate η2 =
.013), or gender and family help (Wilks’s Lambda = .950,
F(5,193) = 2.034, p = .076, multivariate η2 = .050).
In addition, there was no significant effect for the parental educational level covariate—i.e., self-responsibility for
homework appeared unrelated to parental educational level
in this sample (Wilks’s Lambda = .976, F(5,193) = .942,
p = .455, multivariate η2 = .024). Furthermore, the results
showed no significant main effect for grade level (Wilks’s
Lambda = .975, F(5,193) = .981, p = .431, multivariate η2 =
.025). On the other hand, there was a significant main effect
for both gender (Wilks’s Lambda = .922, F(5,193) = 3.287,
p = .007, multivariate η2 = .078) and family help (Wilks’s
Lambda = .919, F(5,193) = 3.392, p = .006, multivariate
η2 = .081).
We performed separate univariate tests to clarify the significant multivariate findings. The alpha level was adjusted
to α = .01 since five dependent variables were analyzed.
Univariate tests showed statistically significant effects of
gender on three of the five dependent variables: managing
time (F(1,197) = 7.107, p = .008, partial η2 = .035), monitoring motivation (F(1,197) = 9.625, p = .002, partial η2 =
.047), and monitoring and controlling emotion (F(1, 197)
= 11.795, p = .001, partial η2 = .056).
Thus, gender appeared unrelated to students’ efforts
to set up an appropriate environment for doing homework
and to focus attention. Gender did relate to budgeting time,
to be self-motivating during homework, and to controlling
potentially interfering emotions. Table 3 presents adjusted
group means and standard deviations from this analysis.
Comparison of adjusted group means for budgeting
time indicated that girls (M = 2.65, SD = .94) reported more
frequently working to manage their time during homework
than boys (M = 2.99, SD = .93). Similarly, girls (M = 2.94, SD
= 1.12) took more initiative in monitoring their motivation
than boys (M = 3.42, SD = 1.11). Girls (M = 2.88, SD= .78)
were also found to be more careful about monitoring and
controlling emotions than boys (M = 3.25, SD = .77).
Univariate tests were also performed to compare effects
of the two levels of family homework help (no vs. yes) on
each of the five dependent variables. The results showed
8
XU AND CORNO
Table 3
Adjusted Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Five Features of Homework Management
Environment
Time
Attention
Motivation
Emotion
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Characteristics
N
M (SD)
M (SD)
Grade
Seventh
114
2.70 (.88)
2.75 (.95)
2.77 (1.02)
3.08 (1.13)
2.97 (.78)
Eighth
92
2.95 (.86)
2.90 (.93)
2.92 (1.01)
3.28 (1.11)
3.15 (.77)
Gender
Family
Help
F=
4.090
1.275
.973
1.618
2.832
η2 =
.020
.006
.005
.008
.014
Boys
102
2.94 (.86)
2.99 (.93)
2.99 (1.00)
3.42 (1.11)
3.25 (.77)
Girls
104
2.71 (.87)
2.65 (.94)
2.70 (1.02)
2.94 (1.12)
2.88 (.78)
F=
3.819
7.107*
4.343
9.625*
11.795*
η2 =
.019
.035
.022
.047
.056
No
66
3.01 (.80)
2.89 (.87)
2.96 (.94)
3.40 (1.04)
3.22 (.71)
Yes
140
2.64 (.82)
2.76 (.88)
2.73 (.95)
2.96 (1.05)
2.90 (.72)
F=
9.712*
1.004
2.782
8.232*
9.279*
η2 =
.047
.005
.014
.040
.045
MANCOVA
Results
Wilks’s Λ = .975
R2 = .025
Wilks’s Λ = .922*
R2 = .078
Wilks’s Λ = .919*
R2 = .081
p < .01.
*
statistically significant effects on three of the five dependent
variables; namely, arranging the homework environment
(F(1,197) = 9.712, p = .002, partial η2 = .047), monitoring
motivation (F(1,197) = 8.232, p = .005, partial η2 = .040),
and monitoring and controlling emotion (F(1, 197) = 9.279, p
= .003, partial η2 = .045). Thus, family help appeared related
to the students’ efforts to set up an appropriate environment
for doing homework, to be self-motivating during homework, and to control potentially interfering emotions.
Comparison of adjusted group means for arranging
the environment (see Table 3) indicated that students who
received family help (M = 2.64, SD = .82) reported more
frequently working to manage their workspace than those
who received no family help (M = 3.01, SD = .80). Similarly, students who received family help (M = 2.96, SD =
1.05) took more initiatives in monitoring their motivation
than students who received no family help (M = 3.40, SD
= 1.04). In addition, students who received family help (M
= 2.90, SD = .72) were more careful about monitoring and
controlling emotions than students who received no family
help (M = 3.22, SD = .71)
Discussion
The present study examined levels of homework
management across the five features: (a) arranging the
environment, (b) managing time, (c) focusing attention, (d)
monitoring motivation, and (e) monitoring and controlling
emotion. In addition, the study explicitly linked gender,
grade level, and family help to these homework management
strategies while controlling for the parent educational levels
of these rural middle school students. It revealed that, on
average, the students in this sample reported taking significantly more initiative in arranging their homework environment, managing time, and focusing attention than they did in
monitoring motivation or in monitoring and controlling their
emotions. It further revealed that gender and family help
were related to several homework management strategies.
HOMEWORK MANAGEMENT
Specifically, compared with those students who received
no family help, students who received family help reported
more frequently working to manage their workspace, to be
self-motivating during homework, and to control potentially
interfering emotions. In addition, compared with boys, girls
reported more frequently working to budget time, to be
self-motivating during homework, and to control potentially
interfering emotions. On the other hand, there were no significant differences across the two grade levels studied on
the five features of homework management.
Interpretation of Findings
Similarities across the two samples. The finding that
no significant differences were found across middle school
grade levels on the five features of homework management
was consistent with findings from an urban sample (Xu &
Corno, 2003). Also in line with these findings, results from
the present sample of rural middle school students showed
that family help may continue to play an important role in
the following two features of homework management: how
to arrange the homework environment and how to monitor
and control potentially interfering emotions. These convergences from two quite different samples imply that middle
school students may still benefit from family help in these
two features of homework management, and that during
middle school years, moving up to a higher grade by and
in itself does not mean that students are ready to take more
initiative in managing their homework.
Differences across the two samples. In the previously
studied urban sample (Xu & Corno, 2003), the urban students reported taking significantly more initiative in time
management, focusing attention, and monitoring motivation
than they did in arranging their environment or in controlling
their emotions. On the other hand, the rural students in the
present sample reported taking significantly more initiative in arranging their homework environment, managing
time, and focusing attention than they did in monitoring
motivation or in controlling their emotions. Whereas both
rural and urban middle school students took significantly
less initiative in controlling their homework emotions, one
area of difference across these two samples was that urban
students took significantly less initiative in arranging their
environment, while rural students took significantly less
initiative in monitoring their motivation.
In addition, unlike the urban school sample, the finding
from the present rural school sample suggests that family
help may make a difference relating to another feature of
homework management: how to be self-motivating during
homework. How do we explain these differences across
these two samples?
One possible explanation was that rural students may
have lower academic motivation insofar as they express
more hesitancy about graduating from high school and
9
going on to college (Arnold et al., 2005; Cobb et al., 1989;
Eider, 1963; Haas, 1992; Haller & Virkler, 1993; Hektner,
1995; Hu, 2003; Kampits, 1996; Kannapel & DeYoung,
1999; Khattri et al., 1997; McCraken & Barcinas, 1991;
Stern, 1994), and they place less importance on academics
(Ley et al., 1996; Stern, 1994). This explanation was, to
some extent, substantiated by the finding that rural students
took significantly less initiative in monitoring motivation
while doing homework. Consequently, it may be that rural
middle school students are more likely to be receptive to
and benefit from family help about how to keep themselves
motivated during homework. This is an important hypothesis
for further study.
As to the finding that urban students took significantly
less initiative in arranging their environment, there are two
possible explanations. First, unlike the urban school students, who often lived with other siblings and their parents
in two-bedroom apartments in a large city, the rural students
in this sample tended to have their own rooms at home (e.g.,
in this community, the average household contained 2.5
residents and 5.6 rooms). As a result, they were in a better
position to cope with distractions that occurred (e.g., television, telephone calls, and siblings) than the urban students
in more congested settings. It may have been easier for the
rural students to create an environment conducive for doing
homework.
Another possible explanation is that the urban middle
school students in the previous sample (Xu & Corno, 2003),
about half of whom were from Latino families, may have
been more likely to integrate homework activities with other
ongoing family activities during after-school hours (e.g.,
housekeeping tasks and leisure activities). There is some
evidence from other research that it is in the Latino culture to
emphasize collectivism (e.g., interdependent relations, social
responsibility, and the well-being of the whole family) rather
than individualism (e.g., individual fulfillment and choice)
(Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001).
One hypothesis is that urban Latino students may take less
initiative to arrange the homework environment themselves,
if they feel they have limited control over their homework
surroundings. To the extent that it is more consistent with
white, rural American culture to emphasize individualism
than collectivism, it makes sense that the rural middle school
students in the present study, who were largely Caucasian,
would report taking more initiative to arrange their homework environments.
Gender differences. What can be made of the findings
that rural middle school girls reported taking more initiative
than their male counterparts in the majority of homework
management strategies examined (i.e., to budget time, to be
self-motivating during homework, and to control potentially
interfering emotions)? As the present study is the first to link
gender to a broad range of homework management strategies at the middle school level, these findings were in line
10
XU AND CORNO
with the theoretical claims (e.g., Covington, 1992, 1998;
Deslandes & Cloutier, 2002; Harris et al., 1993; Jackson,
2002, 2003) and related empirical studies (e.g., Harris et al.,
1993; Hong & Milgram, 1999) implying that girls tend to
hold more positive attitudes toward homework and expend
greater effort on doing homework. For example, these findings are consistent with findings that girls are more likely to
plan and organize their time while doing homework (Harris
et al., 1993; Younger & Warrington, 1996), that girls display
more goal-setting and planning strategies (Zimmerman &
Martinerz-Pons, 1990), and that girls exhibit higher levels
of self-motivation, persistence, and responsibility than boys
of the same age (Honigsfeld & Dunn, 2003).
Whereas these findings of gender differences are consistent with related literature, the present study raises the
interesting question of whether some gender differences
may be influenced by situational demands. For example, in
their study of self-regulated learning strategies used by 90
students in grades 5, 8, and 11 in New York City, Zimmerman and Martinerz-Pons (1990) found that girls reported
more environmental structuring than boys. However, this
gender difference was not observed in the present study.
One possible explanation is that students in this sample
from a rural area often had their own rooms at home, thus
requiring relatively less effort in structuring or restructuring
their homework environment than their counterparts in urban
settings, who (again) had to share a bedroom with a sibling
or a workspace (e.g., the table in the kitchen) with other
family members (Xu, 1994; Xu & Corno, 1998). It makes
sense to imagine that with relatively less need for arranging
the homework environment, there would be no statistically
significant difference between the boys and the girls on this
scale (although the scale for arranging the environment did
show that the girls had a lower mean than that of boys, note
that lower numbers reflect more frequent reported use of this
strategy rather than less) (see Table 3).
Limitations of the Present Study
The findings from the present study are of limited
generalizability because students attended one rural public
school, and only about 10% of them came from non-Caucasian backgrounds. Nevertheless, 35% of these students were
eligible for free or reduced-price meals, which is comparable
to the 2001-2002 national average (Hoffman, 2003). In addition, the mean ACT composite score for the high school
in the present rural community (for which the middle school
is the only feeder school) was 20.9 in 2002—quite close to
the 2002 national mean of 20.8 (ACT, 2002).
Research Implications
Several lines of research are needed to broaden understanding of a range of factors that influence desirable work
habits through the reference task of homework. One line
of research should further study the nature and kinds of
family involvement that best foster each feature of homework management over time and in different settings (Xu
& Corno, 2003), particularly with students from diverse
cultural backgrounds. This line of research is important, as
relevant findings from the present study (i.e., regarding arranging the environment and monitoring motivation) imply
that family homework help may be influenced by a number
of factors including the homework environment (e.g., house
vs. apartment), cultural norms and expectations relating to
family help (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism), and students’ level of motivation for doing homework (e.g., high
vs. low educational aspirations).
As the present study is the first to link gender to a broad
spectrum of homework management strategies at the middle
school level in a rural school, there is a need to continue
this line of research with middle school students in other
rural settings, particularly as the present study suggests
that gender differences may be further influenced by situational demands (e.g., influences on possibilities for better
arranging the homework environment). Similarly, there is
a need to conduct related studies in cross-cultural settings,
as gender differences have been found in some homework
style elements with U.S. and Korean seventh graders (Hong
& Milgram, 1999), but not with the Chinese fifth and seventh
graders (Hong & Lee, 2000).
Another line of research should explore the nature and
types of demands and distractions that rural middle school
students encounter in their life contexts (Xu, 2004) and consequently how and under what conditions (not just whether
or to what magnitude) family help and gender can play a role
in different features of homework management. It would be
particularly informative to conduct qualitative case studies
that, for example, focus on “the microlevel processes that go
on in homes while homework is being carried out” (Cooper,
Lindsay, & Nye, 2000, p. 484). This evidence could again
then be compared to data from similar case studies of the
nature, type, and quality of family homework help in urban
schools (Xu & Corno, 1998). Finally, it would be useful
for researchers to investigate home, cultural, educational,
and mass media influences on gender differences in doing
homework (Pajares, 2002).
Practical Implications
Consistent with the findings from a previous homework
survey with urban middle school students (Xu & Corno,
2003), along with empirical data from other studies (Brody,
Flor, & Gibson, 1999; Chandler et al., 1986; McCaslin &
Murdock, 1991), the present study suggests that families
from rural backgrounds can continue to play an important
role in promoting desirable homework management strategies beyond the elementary years. This is an important mes-
HOMEWORK MANAGEMENT
sage, as (a) the kind of direction parents or family members
give to preadolescents matters, even if they do not have a
higher education, and (b) by middle school level, increasing
age (represented by grade in school) alone will not necessarily spur students to take more initiative in managing their
homework.
The present study further suggests that rural middle
school students may benefit from family help about how
to maintain motivation and engagement during homework.
Middle schools, in general, and rural middle schools, in
particular, might benefit from encouraging families to become involved in structuring and monitoring preadolescents’
homework. Again, data from the present study—as well as
from a previous study (Xu & Corno, 2003)—and from a
large nationally representative sample of participants (Horn
& West, 1992), all revealed that about 30% of families were
not involved in middle school homework.
The present study revealed that, compared with boys,
girls in this rural school more frequently worked to manage
their homework in the majority of the features examined.
Thus there is a need for families to pay particular attention
to boys’ homework at the middle school level and to help
them monitor their homework progress more closely, especially in monitoring motivation and helping them deal with
negative affect while doing homework. Such an approach
is important, as parental attitudes toward homework can
play a significant role in shaping student attitudes toward
homework (Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse, 1998;
Xu & Yuan, 2003) and as family help can make a difference in promoting homework management strategies (Xu
& Corno, 2003).
It seems likely that families would benefit from guidance from middle schools on how to promote homework
management strategies. In particular, families can benefit
from guidance on how to cope with potentially interfering
emotions, as homework can become an emotionally charged
event (Corno & Xu, 2004; Xu & Corno, 1998). Converging evidence from the present and the previous study (Xu
& Corno, 2003) suggests that (a) middle school students
take significantly less initiative in this feature of homework
management than other features and that (b) family help can
make a difference in helping students monitor their emotions. This is an important message, as more rural parents
reported that they were concerned about helping children
establish independent study habits than assisting them with
the academic content of their homework (Reetz, 1991). It
is also in line with one implication drawn from a nationally
representative survey of eighth graders and their parents
from which Keith et al. (1993) call for middle schools to
“help parents develop a homework routine, with a structured place and time for their child’s study” (p. 492). Yet,
middle school homework, as compared with elementary
school homework, often focuses on the materials covered
11
on achievement tests, not on homework management skills
(Cooper & Valentine, 2001).
Finally, “as students grow older their own attitudes
about homework . . . play an increasingly important role
in how much homework they complete and in their class
grades” (Cooper et al., 1998, p. 81). If middle schools actively engage homework’s key participants—the students
themselves—in the homework process, by listening to their
own ideas, strategies, and concerns about how to manage
their homework, and by providing them with more meaningful and relevant support for efforts at self-regulation, then
educators may be able to shape the nature of this role. Such
engagement becomes more important, if, as the present study
implies, the use of certain homework management strategies
may be influenced by gender differences, cultural norms
and expectations relating to family help (e.g., collectivism
vs. individualism), the relevance of homework to students’
future plans (e.g., educational aspirations), and situational
demands (e.g. their perceived control over the homework
environment).
References
ACT. (2002, August 21). Average national ACT score is 20.8
for class of 2002. Retrieved February 17, 2003, from
http://www.act.org/news/releases/2002/08-21-02.html
Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C.
B. (2005, April 27). A look at the condition of rural
education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(6).
Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://www.umaine.
edu/jrre/20-6.pdf
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family
involvement with children’s homework: An intervention
in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149-157.
Beentjes, J. W. J., Koolstra, C. M., & van der Voort, T. H.
A. (1996). Combining background media with doing
homework: Incidence of background media use and perceived effects. Communication Education, 45, 59-72.
Benson, R. (1988). Helping pupils overcome homework
distractions. Clearing House, 61, 370-372.
Brody, G. H., Flor, D. L., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Linking
maternal efficacy beliefs, development goals, parenting
practices, and child competence in rural single-parent
African American families. Child Development, 70(5),
1197-1208.
Chandler, J., Argyris, D., Barnes, W., Goodman, I., & Snow,
C. (1986). Parents as teachers: Observations of low-income parents and children in a homework-like task. In
B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), Ethnographic studies of literacy (pp. 171-187). Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.
Cobb, R. A., McIntire, W. G., & Pratt, P. A. (1989). Vocational and educational aspirations of high school stu-
12
XU AND CORNO
dents: A problem for rural America. Research in Rural
Education, 6(2), 11-23.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in
the home: How student, family and parenting-style differences relate to the homework process. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 464-487.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998).
Relationships among attitudes about homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 70-83.
Cooper, H., & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educational
Psychologist, 36(3), 143-153.
Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes,
influences, and practices. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 229-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 529-548.
Corno, L. (2001). Self-regulated learning: A volitional
analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
research, and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 111-142). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Corno, L., & Xu, J. (2004). Doing homework as the job of
childhood. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 227-233.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth
perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for
motivating young people. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3),
495-513.
Deslandes, R., & Cloutier, R. (2002). Adolescents’ perception of parental involvement in schooling. School
Psychology International, 23(2), 220-232.
Eider, G. H. (1963). Achievement orientations and career
patterns of rural youth. Sociology of Education, 37(1),
30-58.
Epstein, J. L., & Pinkow, L. (1988). A model for research
on homework based on U.S. and international studies.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than
minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-193.
Haas, T. (1992). What can I become: Educational aspirations of students in rural America. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, No. ED 345 931).
Haller, E. J., & Virkler, S. J. (1993). Another look at ruralnonrural differences in students’ educational aspirations. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(3),
170-178.
Harris, S., Nixon, J., & Rudduck, J. (1993). School work,
homework and gender. Gender and Education, 5(1),
3-14.
Hektner, J. (1995). When moving up implies moving out:
Rural adolescent conflict in the transition to adulthood.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(1), 3-14.
Hoffman, L. M. (2003). Overview of public elementary and
secondary schools and districts: School year 200102. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2003411.
Hong, E., & Lee, K. (2000). Preferred homework style and
homework environment in high- versus low-achieving Chinese students. Educational Psychology, 20(2),
125-137.
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Preferred and actual
homework style: A cross-cultural examination. Educational Research, 41(3), 251-265.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2003). High school male and
female learning-style similarities and differences in
diverse nations. Journal of Educational Research,
96(4), 195-206.
Horn, L., & West, J. (1992). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: A profile of parents of eighth graders.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
Hu, S. (2003). Educational aspirations and postsecondary
access and choice: Students in urban, suburban, and
rural schools compared. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(14). Retrieved December 28, 2004 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n14/.
Jackson, C. (2002). ‘Laddishness’ as a self-worth protection
strategy. Gender and Education, 14(1), 37-51.
Jackson, C. (2003). Motives for ‘laddishness’ at school: Fear
of failure and fear of the ‘feminine.’ British Educational
Research Journal, 29(4), 583-598.
Kampits, E. I. (1996). Rural partnerships in New England:
Learning from kids. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12, 171-177.
Kannapel, P. J., & DeYoung, A. J. (1999). The rural school
problem in 1999: A review and critique of the literature.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15, 67-79.
Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G.,
Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K., (1993). Does parental
involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement?
Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology
Review, 22(3), 474-496.
Khattri, N., Riley, K. W., & Kane, M. B. (1997). Students
at risk in poor, rural areas: A review of the research.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13, 79-100.
HOMEWORK MANAGEMENT
Kuhl, J. (2000). The volitional basis of personality systems
interaction theory: Applications in learning and treatment contexts. International Journal of Educational
Research, 33(7-8), 665-704.
Leone, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (1989). Classwork and
homework in early adolescence: The ecology of
achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18(6),
531-548.
Ley, J., Nelson, S., & Beltyukova, S. (1996). Congruence
of aspirations of rural youth with expectations held by
parents and school staff. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 12, 133-141.
Mau, W., & Lynn, R. (2000). Gender differences in homework and test scores in mathematics, reading and science at tenth and twelfth grade. Psychology, Evolution
& Gender, 2(2), 119-125.
McCaslin, M., & Murdock, T. B. (1991). The emergent
interaction of home and school in the development of
students’ adaptive learning. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol.
7, pp. 213-259). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McCracken, J. D., & Barcinas, J. D. T. (1991). Differences
between rural and urban schools, student characteristics,
and student aspirations in Ohio. Journal of Research in
Rural Education, 7(2), 29-40.
McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (1984). When
school goes home: Some problems in the organization of
homework. Teachers College Record, 85(3), 391-409.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in
self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(2),
116-125.
Patton, J. E., Stinard, T. A., & Routh, D. K. (1983). Where
do children study? Journal of Educational Research,
76(5), 280-286.
Pool, M. M., van der Voort, T. H. A., Beentjes, J. W. J., &
Koolstra, C. M. (2000). Background television as an
inhibitor of performance on easy and difficult homework assignments. Communication Research, 27(3),
293-326.
Reddick, T., & Peach, L. E. (1993). Student opinions concerning homework assignments in seven rural high
schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No.
ED 365 494).
Reetz, L. J. (1991). Parental perceptions of homework. Rural
Educator, 12(2), 14-19.
13
Stern, J. D. (Ed.). (1994). The condition of education in rural
schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
Programs for the Improvement of Practice.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for
the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., &
Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures between home and
schools: A guild for teachers. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Warrington, M., Younger, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Student
attitudes, image and the gender gap. British Educational
Research Journal, 26(3), 393-407.
Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework:
Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3),
155-165.
Wober, J. M. (1992). Text in a texture of television: Children’s homework experience. Journal of Educational
Television, 18(1), 23-34.
Xu, J. (1994). Doing homework: A study of possibilities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York, NY.
Xu, J. (2004). Family help and homework management in
urban and rural secondary schools. Teachers College
Record, 106(9), 1786-1803.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third-grade homework. Teachers College Record,
100(2), 402-436.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework
management reported by middle school students. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 503-518.
Xu, J., & Yuan, R. (2003). Doing homework: Listening to
students’, parents’, and teachers’ voices in one urban
middle school community. School Community Journal,
13(2), 25-44.
Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (1996). Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: Some observations
from the perspective of one school. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 17(3), 299-313.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student
differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade,
sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59.